Karen Kraft Sloan

[Sustainable Development, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Wednesday, October 18 marked seven years since leaders from around the world met to discuss the United Nations report on our common future.

The report confirmed the global confrontation between human activities and the environment. It made an urgent plea for shifting to sustainable practices.

There has been much talk in those seven years. Some efficiencies have been gained in the way we do things. We are a little less wasteful and we recycle a whole lot more, but the basic patterns of our society remain unchanged and our long term well-being is seriously threatened.

Part of the problem lies with the lack of clarity of the term. People interpret it in different ways and as a result sustainable development is implemented in different ways.

A number of government initiatives currently under way must help clarify what is meant by the term in order to ensure a shift toward sustainability. We must ensure that the needs of our future generations are not compromised by our actions.

[Child Poverty, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a new report by the Canadian Institute of Child Health details the unacceptable levels of child poverty in this country.

Poor children are more likely to die at birth and more likely to suffer from low birth weight, chronic health problems and psychiatric disorders.

I urge the Minister of Human Resources Development and the government to put Canadian children first when undertaking the upcoming social security reforms. Canadian children have been neglected. It is time to show real leadership and humanity. It is time to improve the lives of Canadian children and their families.

[Gun Control, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians on both sides of the highly emotional, polarized gun control debate must move from their extreme positions and work to find common ground. Legitimate concerns of responsible gun owners will be listened to.

We must not equate gun owners with criminals. However, we must also work to prevent the abuse of firearms.

The shocking brutality of domestic violence must be recognized and understood by all Canadians. In Canada 42 per cent of women killed by husbands are shot, 80 per cent with rifles and shotguns. The majority of these guns are legally owned.

It is a privilege, not a right, to own a firearm. We must do whatever possible to ensure our communities, homes and children are safe.

[Gun Control, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

In my riding of York-Simcoe there are a number of responsible gun owners who have expressed concern over impending gun control legislation. These individuals along with other Canadians recognize the need for measures to curb the violent and illegal use of firearms.

Will the minister give assurance to Canadians today that in any new gun control legislation responsible gun owners will not be unfairly treated and that his efforts will be directed against those who abuse the use of firearms?

[The Environment, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of receiving packages of comments from visiting students from St. Patrick's School in Schomberg and Morning Glory Public School in Pefferlaw. Both are located in my riding of York-Simcoe.

Overwhelmingly these young people have indicated that the environment is their number one concern. Here is a sample of some of their comments: "Our environment is precious". "People should be aware of the pollution they cause". "The environment is important to look at first because we may not have much time left".

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin I would like to thank all the members of the environmental and sustainable development committee for their hard work and commitment to this important piece of legislation.

As a committee we listened to a number of witnesses representing conservation groups, hunters and anglers, and native groups who all have a stake in the outcome of what we have to do today regarding this legislation.

While the state of migratory birds in Canada may seem to some as less significant and less newsworthy than bills pertaining to economic matters or crime and justice issues, it is very significant.

As this legislation has remained relatively untouched since 1917 and if the future mirrors the past then it is possible that changes to this new legislation may not occur for another 50, 60, or 70 years.

More important, the health of our migratory birds, indeed the health of all of our wildlife reflects the quality of human health.

It is with these thoughts in mind that the committee members gave very serious consideration to Bill C-23 as drafted and the subsequent committee amendments. The Migratory Birds Convention Act implements the terms of the migratory birds convention signed in 1916 by Canada and the United States.

The migratory birds convention will be undergoing renegotiation in the fall of 1994 to better reflect realities of the 1990s. Bill C-23 will support these changes.

The original migratory birds convention signed in 1916 by Canada and the United States was intended to curb blatant overhunting practices which in some instances led to the extinction of species of birds and of near extinction with other species.

As one witness told us, we were able to create an incredible success story on the northern part of this continent through the migratory bird convention and other strategies to stem the slaughter and near annihilation of certain bird species.

Conditions have changed since the turn of this century and as we approach the next century we must design and implement legislation that acknowledges and better reflects current demands.

The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development reviewed Bill C-23, heard witnesses, received briefs, and as a result decided Bill C-23 was supportable with a few additional changes.

While a separate process to address First Nations aboriginal or treaty rights is under way and will be included in negotiations to the Canada-U.S. migratory bird convention it was decided by the committee to include a non-derogation clause that clearly acknowledges aboriginal or treaty rights.

For greater certainty nothing in this act shall be construed as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal people of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

For First Nations people migratory birds play a key role in sustaining a way of life. Migratory birds and wildlife are central to the preservation of not only First Nations culture but in some communities their nutritional survival as well.

This is not to say that conservation and sustainability are at risk. Matthew Coon-Come, Chief of the Grand Cree Council, simply and eloquently stated: "Geese first then Cree and third sports hunting".

Until negotiations to the migratory bird convention that reflect aboriginal treaty rights are complete, special enforcement measures exist that allow for traditional harvesting in closed season of migratory birds and eggs.

Another amendment to Bill C-23 allows for game officers who carry out duties or functions under the act to be exempt from any of its provisions or regulations. This will greatly facilitate the enforcement aspects of the act, as game officers will be able to undertake undercover operations with suspected offenders without fear of being charged. This should improve their ability to gather clear and decisive evidence against offenders.

Canadians value wildlife and the natural resources of this country. While a great many Canadians hunt or fish over 75 per cent enjoy wildlife through non-consumptive participation. They spent $2.4 billion on primary non-consumptive wildlife related trips and outings in 1991; $1.2 billion was spent on hunting.

Preservation of migratory birds is very important to Canadians and contributes in very positive ways to the economy.

Commercial poaching and smuggling of migratory birds pose grave risks. With this in mind, the committee spent a long time deliberating over the level of fines for offenders. After a great deal of thoughtful consideration, it was decided to increase the

fines for summary offences for individuals to a maximum of $50,000 and for a corporation to a maximum of $100,000.

Maximum fines for indictable offences have been increased for individuals to $100,000 and for corporations to $250,000. In the case of subsequent offences, the subsequent fine may be doubled from the previous offence, notwithstanding the maximums already outlined.

Some may scoff that the value of a bird being $100,000 or $250,000 is far too exorbitant. I would suggest that if they do, they do so in ignorance. No monetary value can be placed on the killing of a bird or other wildlife where that killing contributed in a real way to the endangerment of the species.

This government is committed to strengthening the participation of committees in the work of governing the country. I applaud this initiative and see as a result of this new attitude toward governing the substantial contributions made by members of the environment and sustainable development committee in proposing amendments to Bill C-23.

The final amendment I would like to address today arises from suggestions made by witnesses appearing before the committee. I believe the inclusion of this amendment strengthens the democratic process by increasing participation in that process. This amendment proposes that any amendment to the migratory birds convention be tabled in both Houses and debated in the House of Commons.

As we proceeded with the witnesses, it became quite evident that a number of other issues beyond the scope of this legislation must also be addressed if we are to truly protect and enhance the health of migratory birds.

The committee examined both Bill C-23 and Bill C-24, a bill to amend the Canada Wildlife Act. A number of concerns articulated by witnesses pertain to the wider category of wildlife, not only migratory birds.

Issues related to enforcement and habitat protection were most often identified by witnesses. From my experience with the two pieces of legislation, Bill C-23 and Bill C-24, I have come to respect the dedication and commitment shown by officials of the Canadian Wildlife Service.

However, in terms of enforcement they are in dire need of support to increase the number of game officers. Witness after witness spoke of real problems that existed because required coverage was far too vast for the number of available game officers.

As a result, it may be difficult to implement even the best legislation. Habitat protection, another key concern of witnesses, has many dimensions. Many strategies need to be deployed in order to ensure sustainability and viability.

The migratory birds convention was originally intended to deal with the severe overhunting problems that threatened many species at that time. While commercial poaching and smuggling are still significant threats, habitat protection is the number one concern for the preservation of not only migratory birds but all Canadian wildlife.

The amendment to the Canada Wildlife Act to expand the scope of coverage of wildlife to include all living organisms is a much needed change and provides not only a valuable starting point but also a valuable rethinking of what species preservation really means.

If we are really serious about preserving and protecting wildlife in this country, we must first and foremost be very serious about habitat protection. Wildlife have been called the barometer of the landscape. The capacity of the land or habitat to support fish, birds and mammals is a good indicator of its capacity to meet human needs; wildlife habitat is human habitat.

As long as we have endangered spaces in this country we will continue to have endangered species. There are a number of strategies and programs designed to rehabilitate, preserve and protect habitats.

We have entered into agreements with the United States and now recently with the Mexican government through the North American waterfowl management plan to ensure that migratory waterfowl have safe and healthy areas for nesting and feeding.

As I stated earlier in my speech, even though we have achieved a truly unique and wonderful success story in reversing the trend toward endangerment and annihilation for some species, I fear we are falling behind. Our precious wetlands, the most biologically diverse ecosystems, are under attack. They are being drained for agricultural uses and development purposes.

Toxic substances have entered our watersheds and contaminated the fish the birds eat resulting in deformities, soft eggshells that cannot withstand the pressure of parental incubation, crossed bills, jaw defects and malformed feet and joints. Forests that provided habitat protection for wildlife have been lost due to clear-cutting.

These are for the most part beyond the scope of the legislation before us. However, they are important considerations that we must not forget if we are to truly preserve the sustainability and health of migratory birds.

I urge the members of this House to support Bill C-23 and its proposed amendments fully without delay.

[Department Of Citizenship And Immigration Act, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the member on the other side is an immigrant and a new Canadian and that he will have some sensitivity to other new Canadians. I also understand that the member opposite is a physician. I was wondering if the member was educated in Canada.

I would also like to ask the member, just as a bit of clarification and edification on his earlier remark, whether we should do an economic analysis of the benefits that immigrants provide this country. If indeed the member on the other side was educated as a medical doctor, which is an incredible cost to the Canadian taxpayer, I was wondering if he has figured out his economic benefit to this country.

[Environment, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pollution has been a prominent threat to Canada's environment for many decades. Since 1988 the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has enabled the federal Minister of the Environment to regulate environmental pollution at the national level. Through an ecosystem approach it addresses pollution problems on land, in water and in all layers of the atmosphere.

CEPA was designed to improve the government's environment record and standards on federal lands as well as First Nations lands and to enable Canada to fulfil its international environmental protection obligations.

The act covers a number of regulations ranging from controls on CFCs through pulp and paper effluence to PCB storage. In the red book a Liberal government pledged to use the five-year review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to make pollution prevention a national goal and to strengthen the enforcement of federal pollution standards. This is exactly what this government intends to do.

The Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development is an excellent choice to undertake this review. The committee will be able to assess the effects of toxic substances on the health of entire ecosystems. We must take advantage of this opportunity to review CEPA and learn more about the effects of toxic substances on the environment.

We must identify and improve our understanding of atmospheric pollutants. The health of our ecosystems ultimately affects human health. Although the link between ecosystem health and human health is complex, we cannot ignore an ecosystem which is ailing. We cannot ignore fish with tumours caused by toxins, birds with crossed bills caused by eating contaminated fish and reproductive problems in wildlife that eat fish.

We cannot help but fear that human health is also in jeopardy since they are so inextricably linked. Fortunately Canada still has a number of rivers and lakes which can be considered clean. Yet we also have ecosystems that have been contaminated by industrial effluence, agricultural and urban run-off. There has been some progress made in slowing the degradation of Canada's ecosystems.

In order to ensure a healthy environment for future generations, we must develop new ways to protect our resources. I believe we must review CEPA as one part of our strategy to create a sustainable environment. We must make appropriate amendments in order to meet the environmental challenges of the 21st century.

In the past, Canada has concentrated on regulating the release of pollutants. This approach has had success. However I also feel that we must develop new approaches that target pollution prevention at the source to complement CEPA. Manufacturing innovations and other environmental technologies are needed to correct the problem where it is created.

Currently Canada has about 4,500 environmental firms employing 150,000 people with combined revenues in excess of $11 billion. By the year 2000 the International Monetary Fund has forecasted that the environmental technology market is anticipated to reach $600 billion.

I believe that this government should support Canadian entrepreneurs and their endeavours to seize opportunities in this industry. Canada has developed a global reputation as an environmental leader and we must continue to build on this role. New environmental technologies and services will promote economic growth in Canada. New technologies will also enable us to clean up and prevent environmental problems.

In the pulp and paper industry, new technology has reduced the quantity of suspended solids and oxygen depleting material in mill effluent. Just a few weeks ago I had the wonderful opportunity to tour a pulp and paper mill which is committed to cleaner production technologies and improved waste treatment.

The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan was kind enough to extend an invitation to Avenor mill in his riding. I was very impressed by its water treatment system and recycling efforts. This plant has significantly reduced the concentration of toxic substances in mill effluents.

Representatives from across the country have come to see the remarkable technological innovations this company has undertaken. We must applaud its effort and support future endeavours like this. I believe that CEPA has played a major role in identifying problems and forcing companies to realize that old environmentally harmful practices are not acceptable. However it is environmental technologies that have enabled companies to remedy the problem and promote more sustainable futures.

In the review of CEPA we must ensure that the federal government does not overlap and duplicate provincial regulations. We must work with the provinces to streamline and harmonize our efforts in order to cut costs and reduce confusion and frustration for environmentalists and industrialists.

Currently the Canadian Council of Environmental Ministers is in the process of working toward this end. Government and regulation are not just top down policies. I firmly believe that action at the community level is where real change occurs.

In the riding of York-Simcoe which I represent, the SOS Alliance has launched a public awareness of Lake Simcoe's serious phosphorous pollution problem in order to save Lake Simcoe.

Currently thousands of tonnes of sediment and phosphorous are being dumped into the lake every year from urban and rural sources, twice the amount that the lake requires to evolve naturally. Evidence proves that the water quality has deteriorated.

The SOS Alliance realizes that protecting Lake Simcoe ultimately protects our way of life and the entire ecosystem in the Lake Simcoe basin. In addition, by saving Lake Simcoe, a

natural resource worth $500 million annually to the economy of the Lake Simcoe watershed will also be saved.

A healthy economy and standard of living are dependent upon a healthy environment. The public has shared an interest and a responsibility in the environment. Therefore, the public should be able to access information easily and should also play a role in the shaping of new laws and policies as well as becoming involved in community based environmental projects.

Once the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development is given the task to review CEPA, I, as vice-chair of this committee, will work with my colleagues to ensure that all sectors are consulted in our review process. I firmly believe that a review of CEPA with extensive consultation is a step in the right direction to ensure that Canada as a nation will be able to meet the environmental challenges of the 21st century.

[First Nations, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the chief of the Chippewas of Georgina Island, Bill McCue, from my riding of York-Simcoe, extends an invitation to the member of Capilano-Howe Sound so he can visit his south sea island to witness the many people all actively working in and for their community, seeking employment and working hard to create employment. Chief McCue wants the member to know that if the federal government is sponsoring laziness, it is not evident in his band.

First Nations people everywhere deserve an apology for this unacceptable accusation. The lack of enlightenment and sensitivity by members of the Reform Party was clearly demonstrated yesterday. I was personally outraged by the paternalistic attitudes exhibited in the many speeches of the Reform members. In particular the statements of the member for Capilano-Howe Sound were reprehensible, irresponsible and completely unworthy of our First Nations people.

[Yukon First Nations Land Claimssettlement Act, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued by the questioning about First Nations. We are indeed talking about First Nations. These were the first people on this continent. They are not one nation, they are many nations, and I think it is only right that people have the opportunity to name themselves.

I was in northern Sweden and you are probably familiar with the term Laplander. Laplanders did not name themselves Laplanders, they call themselves Sami which means the people.

There is a bit of confusion here around this issue. This is not just a trendy little name that has been bandied about; this is a name that the indigenous people of North America have chosen for themselves, First Nations, and we use it out of respect.

When we talk about treating people equally, and that is absolutely the point here, we have to understand the historical roots of discrimination, the barriers to discrimination, the systemic aspects of discrimination. These are not conquered people. These people had treaties, agreements with our government and rightfully they are seeking what is theirs.